The SiD Sustainability Definition

Systems do not only have a spatial boundary, but also one in time and in context. Something is ‘sustainable’ for a certain, relevant, time frame. We are clear to say ‘relevant time frame’ because, to take a simple example, it is irrelevant for us to be concerned about the sustainability of the Earth and its life forms beyond the expiration of our sun, which is scheduled to happen in 100 million or so years. Often a ‘relevant time frame’ can be taken as several generations. Since these succeed each other while the definition is still active, as time goes by the essence should be maintained over many generations. In reality, looking much further than 50 years ahead is often not feasible. Yet, 50 years is insignificant compared to human history. This is also where resilience comes in again. Resilience is a long term property encompassing patterns of change, while growth is just a part of the ebb and flood of the system in motion. In the end, nothing is eternal, and nothing should be. Sustainability is not about endlessness or development for eternal preservation. There’s always a natural end to a system’s life span. And so it should be. Sustainable, explicitly, does not mean immortal, or eternal. Things come and go, and a sustainable system ‘pulses’ like all natural systems do, aiming to adapt itself to be better-fitted each time around. A sustainable system also inherently accepts there is an end to things, and gracefully resolves itself when that moment is there. Like dead trees in a forest become new habitats for other organisms, leaving room for the cycle of life to continue. This rise and fall of things is also present on the system level. It is about being able to continue to flourish, remain doing so as long as possible while being relevant, without endangering the system that it’s a part of. Complex Systems The word ‘complex’ appears in the definition to underline that we are talking about systems from the understanding of non-linear, infinitely complex entities, almost like biological entities, and not from a predictable, finite, mechanistic understanding of systems. Let’s look at that further, and why it is important. We differentiate between ‘complex’ systems and ‘non-complex’ systems. These terms are analogous with terms used in various fields such as respectively ‘nonlinear’ and ‘linear’, and “complex” vs. “complicated”. Non-complex systems are systems of which the objects and relations can be fully indexed and understood, they are finite in their composition, and in some cases, can be fully modeled using physics, mathematics, or other science tools. They’re called non-complex, rather than ‘simple’’, because non-complex systems can still be very complicated and far from simple. For example, the electrical system of a house, is a non-complex system. You can model it using mechanical system analysis and predict its behavior. But it can still be pretty complicated to figure it all out. Working with these non-complex systems has been the prevalent mode of systems analysis, design, and innovation for the last century. We know how to accurately model them, and what kind of behavior they can exhibit, which can mostly be explained from a mechanical perspective. Complex systems, however, are an entirely different ballgame. A complex system is a system which consists of a number of objects and relations so numerous that we can’t keep track of all of them. Complex systems are also called chaotic systems or non-linear systems (to further confuse it all). Complex systems exhibit behavior that cannot be predicted using normal mechanical (non-complex) systems behavior or computer simulation. Hence, the ‘non-linear’ name. An easy example is the weather. Nobody can accurately predict the weather more than a week into the future using mathematical models - there are too many factors involved, and the events that generate the governing future patterns may not yet have happened. As we try to predict further ahead, the complexities multiply so fast, any attempt at doing so grinds to a halt. Some complex systems may appear like a non-complex system, or have been treated as such in the past. This is a dangerous move and continues to cause issues in society. Ever had a bad weather forecast ruin a party? This also happens to our economy, for example, by introducing policy measures that are well-intended but do not take into account the complexity of the system. One can blame the poor policy performance on ‘unexpected’ events, but really, only the expected is unexpected in complex systems. An economic policy that does not account for complex dynamics is simply not resilient, which means it was plain bad policy. Thinking you can predict a complex system is a thinking error. Just as our brains are more than a sum of molecules, so are complex systems more than the sum of their parts. They tend to behave less like machines and more like creatures displaying ‘emergent’ behavior. Acting on one aspect of a system in isolation will always have side effects on the rest of the system. Expecting complex systems to respond like machines is a one way road to disaster. In this book, we focus on complex systems over non-complex ones, because we feel they are the determinants of the future of our world. In sustainability literature, non-complex systems modeling is often used to explain certain economic or social patterns. While useful as an exercise, and to use for insight, we should exercise caution when encountering this sort of argumentation. It’s tempting to want to simplify complex systems to try to understand their behavior in mechanical terms, in order to move forward, but it’s also dangerous. It is in the quality of ‘complexity’ that systems do their special thing. Because of this importance, we find the word ‘complex’ essential in SiD’s sustainability definition. Even though complex systems can’t be predicted, they can be studied, learned from, their behaviors analyzed and intervened on in order to make them, for example, more resilient. We’ll get into more detail about this later on. To help get a feel for what a complex system is and isn’t, we’ve assembled 12 general rules that complex systems typically comply to on the next page. We go further into system dynamics and complex systems further on in this chapter. Dynamic Systems The SiD definition defines sustainability not as a physical constant, but as a state of a dynamic system. This means that sustainability is an edge condition of something that always moves, changes, grows, shrinks and acts in accordance to changes in its environment and internal composition. This means that a system can move and change while still remaining in the ‘state’ of sustainability, as long as it doesn’t cross the border of its state. Defining it as such allows us to evaluate and work towards sustainability without locking ourselves into static and rigid structures, which would inhibit resilience. Because there’s always something that changes, be it due to smaller or larger changes in climate, the natural cycles of birth and decay, the laws of entropy or something else, a system needs to be able to adapt itself in order to be able to continue doing what it does if it is to survive (resilience). Therefore, a sustainable system is always dynamic. Without dynamism there’s no capacity for adaptability, flexibility and therefore no resilience. A system without resilience is hard-pressed to be sustainable. After all, if it can’t survive changes in its environment, how can a system be called sustainable? We can therefore expand our understanding of sustainability to be not just a state of a system, but explicitly that of a dynamic system. It puts sustainability in the realm of systems analysis and science, including network and complexity theory. This enables a myriad of new perspectives on how to achieve and work with sustainability, allowing many new innovative pathways to be explored. Resilience and autonomy The second sentence of the SiD sustainability definition is: “In this state, a system can continue to flourish resiliently, in harmony, and without requiring critical inputs from outside its system boundaries.” The first sentence identifies what we understand the word sustainability to truly be: a state of a complex dynamic system. This second sentence identifies what this state actually is. This sentence can be broken down into three terms, defining that a sustainable system is one which is resilient, autonomous, and in harmony. As you can see, we captured the part “without requiring inputs from outside its system boundaries.” in the word ‘autonomy’. Resilience, Autonomy, and Harmony are the main three system indicators for sustainability in the SiD system. Resilience determines the degree to which a system can survive unexpected occurrences, a critical part of continuing to exist. Autonomy determined to what degree a system can take care of its own needs, and its ability to continue doing so. We’ll discuss Resilience and Autonomy in detail further on, but Harmony may seem a little odd here as a term. Let’s look at that for a minute. Harmony, Social justice and Ethics In the first part of the definition, we use the word ‘harmony’. In the second part of the definition, where we exemplify what a sustainable society may surmount to, we refer to just societies. These include the necessary elements of social justice and discussions about fairness. Inharmonious systems (unjust, inequitable, large divisions of resource control, etc.) give rise to internal strife and even war, and thus, endanger the sustainability of a system. A system can be resilient and autonomous, but without harmony between its agents it will still collapse due to the eruption of internal tension. One can even say that a system that is resilient and autonomous, but not harmonious, is the opposite of what we hope to achieve, conjuring up images of hardy evil empires impossible to overthrow. Harmony finds much of its intelligence from agencies dealing with human rights, and ethics. Ethics discusses matters of equity, social justice, the perception of value, and how we determine ‘good’ and ‘bad’. You can read about some main ethical perspectives in the tools chapter, and we’ll discuss Harmony together with Resilience and Autonomy in detail in section 1.2.4. We aim to flourish The word ‘flourish’ is also present in the definition. This gives us a way to positively regard difficult to quantify values such as quality of life, cultural and artistic value, etc. Resilient, self sustained, harmonious life is already great, but there’s value in excitement as well, which is where flourishing comes in. How does it all add up? With the SiD sustainability definition, we determine that a sustainable system is one which is self-sufficient, resilient enough to continue operating under a wide range of expected and unexpected events, and is harmonious and just while it flourishes. To translate that to our modern society, this means a society where all the energy and material loops are closed, we no longer make use of finite resources, and wealth and power are distributed in an ethical way. It means that our ecosystems and fellow species are thriving, allowing us to benefit from their resources without breaking them down as we do so. It means an equitable society in which we all have a chance to lead a life with quality and create a meaningful existence for ourselves, our children and loved ones. And, our resources are more or less equitably distributed. This is what the last part of the definition describes. And who doesn’t want that? Well, there are some. Discuss among yourselves... Now that we have a basis to align and agree on as far as what we hope to achieve on a system level, let’s try to see how this breaks down into the practical, real world, and how we can go about achieving this. In the next sections, we start by creating a language to analyze systems and their components, how we can measure them, and how to create new solutions that achieve that goal.

The Symbiosis in Development sustainability definition (v4): Sustainability is a state of a complex, dynamic system. In this state, a system can continue to flourish resiliently, in harmony, without requiring inputs from outside its system boundaries . Applied to our civilization, this state is consistent with societies powered by renewable energy and closed loop material systems, living in thriving ecosystems, on a biodiverse planet, with healthy and happy individuals living in just, tolerant, and diverse cultures, supported by open and transparent economies. “When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe”

• john muir

group exercise Practice understanding what sustainability means by thinking about how you would look at the below items in a systemic context. Remembering that only systems can be sustainable (or not), how would you rephrase the following items? A ‘sustainable’ soda can A ‘sustainable’ city A ‘sustainable’ house A ‘sustainable’ organization A ‘sustainable’ policy measure Group Exercise Format (20 minutes) Assign a term to each individual in the group. Let each person think for about 5 minutes on the subject. Then, have a 10-15 minute reflection on the results afterwards, one by one. Optionally, have a group discussion following. What you hope to see in the resulting discussion is that in each case, it is useful to ‘reverse’ the term, by making it reflect on society. EG, a ‘sustainable’ soda can is a soda can that maximally contributes to a sustainable society. A ‘sustainable city’ is a city that contributes positively to the sustainability of the country, or of the global human society as a whole. And so on. 12 rules of complex systems Complex systems are numerous (uncountable) in their components in which all components influence each other. They exhibit non-linear behavior emergent from their interactions beyond each component’s mechanical (linear) behavior. Complex systems can be understood but not predicted . Any action upon them may have unpredictable (side-)effects. Don’t make decisions based on prediction; instead, prepare for resilience, adaptability, flexibility and so forth. Complex systems grow like organisms , and, like them, perish like them. No complex system is meant to exist for eternity. Understand and accept the natural cycle of things, and aim for self-reproductivity and longevity rather than eternality. Complex systems require an increasing number of resources per added unit of complexity . This means there are always limits to their growth. Systems respond differently at different scales, but may exhibit similar patterns at different scales. Complex systems change rapidly in revolution-like jumps, as well as in slow evolutionary progression , and both together. These events can be triggered by anything. Patterns in details are just as important as large-scale variables. Complex systems do not necessarily behave the same way given the same conditions , nor is historical behavior always an indication of future behavior. Complex systems are always dynamic, never sit still, and are never entirely in balance, even if they seem to be. Complex systems are not aware or alive per se, but may exhibit survival or seemingly cognitive behavior . It makes sense to mentally construct a complex system as a biological entity with a character to increase your understanding of its dynamics. Complex systems require incubation periods for changes to be registered , processed, and acted upon. Be patient. Measure in the full spectrum for any changes lest you miss a rebound effect or changed state somewhere. Complex systems, at the moment, can best be understood by human brains , as they’re also organic complex systems. Immersing oneself in a complex system and fully interacting with it is the best way to learn its behavior. In other words, try to get out from behind your desk and connect. Complex systems interact beyond their chosen system boundary, which needs to be taken into account at all times. Maximize the beneficial properties of these externalizations and minimize the system’s dependency on them for increased sustainability. Complex systems always offer hidden dynamic processes that can have beneficial as well as destructive effects. Find these patterns to boost capacity for change and prevent harmful externalities. harmonious autonomous flourishing Resilient examples: object over system Object-Oriented Sustainability Goes Wrong Why is system thinking and an integrated approach so important for sustainable development? Let’s imagine our society as a complex creature with various bits and pieces that keep it running. These bits and pieces are our everyday technologies – cars, planes, light bulbs, computers, as well as us, nature, and all other ‘things’. The technological bits move people from place to place, facilitate communication, allow us to read after dark, travel around the world, and perform many other amazing and useful functions. Ideally, we like to keep all of those, but without their negative impact. Many current ‘sustainable’ projects and environmental policies are focused on these ‘negative’ objects. In other words, they are centered around finding bits within the organism of our society that could be running a bit more efficiently, and making an effort to replace them with “better” versions. We’ve seen many examples of this type of ‘sustainable’ solution, often developed with the best of intentions, that resulted in worse scenarios than if they had not been conceived at all. Examples are solutions that save energy that at the same time pollute our environment with toxins, or eco-friendly devices that are produced under dismal human conditions. We see many examples of ‘green’ solutions that are pushing the damage from one area to another, from one time frame to the next, and from one generation to another. As we see now, these are due to what we call an ‘object-oriented’ approach (see examples on this and the next page). The system as a whole, its purpose, direction, and impact, will not change if we just switch out bits and pieces. It isn’t just the bits that need upgrading. It is the configuration of the overall system that is at fault. We need to redesign the organism itself. We need to begin functioning differently within our societies, changing the patterns of our behavior, and reducing our impact by orders of magnitude, not just by tiny increments. The true nature of the problems that we face IS, per se, systemic, and requires an entirely different approach. To cite Einstein: “We cannot solve problems with the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”. If we don’t use a new systemic approach, we’re trying to cure the symptoms, but not the disease, and things will continue to go very wrong. The Light Conundrum Artificial light has been essential for our development. It has extended our working day, providing increased productivity, safety, and quality of life. But these little fake suns come at a big energy cost. As society expands, so has their burden on our energy resources. Thus, the European Commission banned the tungsten filament light bulb in 2009, the trusty mini sun that has lighted our homes for over a century, because it emits most energy in the form of heat and is therefore not efficient for lighting purposes. The only alternative at the time was the Compact Fluorescent Light (CFL), commonly known as a power saving bulb. Sounds good. But few of us knew that CFL’s use mercury vapor to do its thing, a highly neurotoxic substance. Even the most perfect recycling program won’t prevent some of the lamps breaking, impacting our health and the environment. So for the sake of energy savings, we have introduced a toxic substance in our lives and nature, a substance we spend large amounts of effort on trying to get rid of. This is a typical example of ‘trading pain’; we save some energy, but at the expense of damage to our health and ecosystems. CFL’s can be a beneficial addition, depending on how its energy is produced and how the lamps are used, but just substituting one for the other is not necessarily a sustainable act. Thankfully we have good LEDs now. Bioplastic Not so Fantastic Bioplastic is another invention that promised to improve our society’s sustainability performance overnight. As with most object-oriented solutions, there’s no free lunch and bioplastics, most commonly in the form of PLA, can do great damage when not applied well. Firstly, when swapping normal plastics for bioplastics, the bioplastics can end up in existing recycling streams. Being a different type of material (but hard to differentiate by the consumer), bioplastics degrade the quality of the plastic batch, making the normal plastic batch near useless, and crashing recycling performance. Secondly, bioplastics do not dissolve when thrown in nature; they require industrial composting under pressure and elevated temperatures. This means the big plastic waste issue that haunts our environment isn’t anywhere near closer to being solved when using them. Bioplastics need their own, separated, and controlled recycling stream to perform well, and this is hardly present. Lastly, some feedstock for bioplastics comes from lands that could otherwise grow food. Food is a more critical resource than waste-plastic, so we’re trading productive land for waste, which isn’t a sustainable solution. Bioplastics can be useful, but only when applied in a systemicly appropriate way. Example: a systems level IQ test This is a non-essential background story. Feel free to skip it, or read it if you like an anectdotal story on the systemic use of IQ tests. Do you have thoughts about the value of IQ tests? Have you discussed the usefulness and applicability of such tests? There’s a big chance you have. In my circles, including myself, most people seem to hold the belief that IQ tests are incapable of assessing the whole of a human being’s capacities, and thus are of limited value. Until I heard this story. This story demonstrates a great example of something that is contentious on an object level (testing individuals on their IQ score), but is massively valuable on a systems level when used right. I heard this story first on a US podcast by Radiolab, called “The Miseducation of Larry P.”. A more expansive and detailed account of this story can be heard by listening to that show (freely available online). The nature of an IQ test There are a variety of IQ tests available, and the tests have evolved through time, originating in the work of psychologist William Stern in 1912. Their use includes: as a means to determine the suitability of potential employees for jobs, the performance of education systems, the mental health and wellbeing of individuals, and as a means to regulate entrance to social clubs (eg. Mensa). I remember doing one in high-school as part of a voluntary scan to determine what professions I would be suitable for. I also remember a mental feedback loop while doing it, about being nervous on how my performance would influence the choices about my future, and how my nervousness would affect this. I spent half of the test in near panic about my nervousness itself. As these tests have found various places in society over time, so too have criticisms on their usage. Some argue that the tests can only ever determine a (small) part of an individual human’s capacities, risking misrepresentation of a person’s value. Others argue that the nature of performing such a test in itself is highly susceptible to context and psychological anomalies, and will invalidate any usable result. All in all, there’s much opposition to the tests being used for anything other than voluntary testing without consequence. So too, I thought IQ tests had little societal value. Until I heard this story. And the story requires a bit of background to follow, about leaded gasoline. The origin of Leaded gasoline Tetraethyllead is an additive used to raise the octane rating of combustible fuels, allowing for substantially higher compression, and thus higher performance. This property was first used by DuPont, and applied by General Motors in 1921 for gasoline engines. Knowledge about the toxicity of lead gasses had been known for 3000 years already, from the Greeks. Lead being a strong neuro-toxin was widespread knowledge from the 19th century. Because of the strong existing negative associations with lead, DuPont called it ‘Ethyl’. Which, by the way, shows the importance of calling things by their rightful name. Already in 1924 public controversy rose after workers died in the refineries. Experts publicly warned of the dangers of leaded gasoline for several years, to no avail. There were even alternatives to lead as an additive to solve the problem of ‘knocking’ in engines, but through many years of public manipulation and health reports, its use was continued. Leaded gasoline was universally adopted around the world from that time. The discovery of the damage Around the 1950s, a scientist named Clair Cameron Paterson was performing research into the age of the earth. He used very old rocks he found from around the world to do so. In the process of analyzing them, he found that lead contamination invalidated his results. After solving this by working in a clean-room (and determining the age of the earth fairly accurately), he became interested in lead contamination. Why was all this lead there? He started to study different soil and ice samples from around the world and found high presence of lead everywhere on earth, specifically tied to recent time periods. He correlated it to the start of the use of leaded gasoline. Because he knew the health dangers of lead, he continued this research and contributed greatly to the opposition to the use of lead in gasoline over time. Following this, reports were published in the 1960s on the health effects of leaded gasoline. The reports proved direct health effects, due to the presence of lead, in virtually everyone alive. This had been challenging, because of the insidious and long-term nature of lead toxicity on human health and mind. The reports were devastating, showing significant mental health reductions, especially in children. After some backlash from industry, the Environmenmtal Protection Agency (EPA) in the USA eventually made regulation in 1973 to “phase down” the use of leaded gasoline from 1976 onwards. You’d think things were over and settled with by then. But then you’d be wrong. on the brink of return The early presidential administration of Ronald Reagan in 1981-83 intended to release industry on all kinds of environmental regulation. They used economic cost-benefit analysis as a means to oppose environmental regulations. All kinds of ‘costly’ regulation was overturned in this time. DuPont formally requested to remove all lead regulations, and the EPA, under new Reagan-controlled leadership, was eager to comply. They claimed that it cost the US industry over $96 million per year to replace lead in gasoline with other stuff. For this reason, the EPA announced to remove all regulation for leaded gasoline across industries. When the news broke, a public uproar ensued. So, the EPA commissioned a cost-benefit analysis from its own EPA scientist Joel Schwartz. Schwartz however did not agree with the proposed plans, and went rogue... The cost-benefit of the population’s IQ Schwartz assembled research done earlier by scientists such as Herbert Needleman in the 60’s and 70’s. Needleman had shown proof of general population health effects of leaded gasoline. He did this by using widespread IQ testing. While the IQ tests didn’t say anything useful about the individuals, they were used by Needleman as a systemic test, measuring the general population’s mental health. Needleman showed that the influence of lead caused the whole population to go down by several IQ points. He showed this to be true especially in children, who are 4-5 times more sensitive in their development to the presence of lead. While a reduction of a few IQ points may not seem much, as a statistical measure, it means a in increase in the amount of people with a very low IQ (~80) of about 20-30% and a decrease in people with a very high IQ (~130). Schwartz took this research, and made the commissioned cost-benefit analysis of the EPA to include costs due to the financial impact of this lower population IQ. He included higher social care costs, the lost earning capacity of the reduced mental health of the population, medical care, and increased mortality rates. Schwartz’s cost-benefit calculation at the time showed a $3.5 billion a year per 1 ug/dl lead in the bloodstream benefit of the regulation. The total net benefit of the leaded gasoline restriction as a whole came out in total to US$ 6.7 billion from 1985-92. This beat the intended result of the cost-benefit comparison on the Reagan administration at their own game. Consequences of the analysis The expected industry backlash, and the attempts to undermine, discredit, and disprove the research, only served to strengthen the case. It was proven beyond doubt that leaded gasoline restrictions were doing more good than harm, by a large margin. In 1985, not only did the EPA retain the regulations, they sped up their phasing in. The results are that between 1976 and 1980, lead use in gasoline dropped 50%, and blood level lead presence dropped by 37%. Between 1975 and 1984 lead use dropped by 73%, and airborne lead by 71%. In 1993, additional and updated research by Schwartz reset the total benefit to US$ 17.2 billion per year in reduced medical costs for children and hypertension in adults, and lost earnings. By 2011, the United Nations announced it had been successful in phasing out the use of leaded gasoline worldwide, although there were still a few countries where it was for sale until 2017. While sounding like a victory, the damage by use of lead in gasoline has left a big scar on the development to life on earth. There has been a statistically significant correlation proven of leaded gasoline use and violent crime rates, in the US as well as in South Africa. Researchers including Jessica Wolpaw Reyes, Rick Nevin, and Howard Mielke say that the banning of leaded gasoline amounts to up to 34% decline in crime from 1992 to 2002 in the USA. Besides this, the lead put into the atmosphere is still there, and will impact all life on earth for centuries to come. what can we learn? This story started with a question about IQ tests, and questioning their use and validity. As the story hopefully demonstrates, something that may seem of limited value on the level of the individuals, may become one of the most valuable tools when regarded on a systemic level. On the system level we’re not necessarily looking for completeness of perfection. In many cases, we’re looking for a general ‘thermometer’ that gives us an average of the system’s performance. The value of the IQ test does not lie in its capacity to evaluate individuals compared to one another. Its value lies in its use as a general thermometer of the population as a whole over time, or in different scenarios. The case for integrated value assessment The story also shows the value and importance of using more integrated impact assessments, rather than economic parameters alone. In this case, the inclusion of medical costs and reduced earning potential was already enough to show a huge discrepancy in cost-benefit. To continue to make our world a more healthy, fair, resilient place, it benefits us to push for more integrated measurements to be used in all policy decision making, as well as in corporate governance. With lead, We knew before the birth of Christ that lead was extremely poisonous, so that should have been an easy one to avoid. What decisions do we make today that we’ll regret later, just because we only measured the cost-benefit on an economic level?